Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings, all.

I think that one of the reasons many of us are into Wargames is because we love the idea of outsmarting the opponent on the battlefield. In short, the mastery of tactics.

I see a lot of threads where gamers ask for advice on how to beat certain armies. And although sometimes I see true tactical advice (use cover to your advantage, catch him in a pincer maneuver) just as often (or more often?) I see advice like this:

JUST BUY MORE XXXXX FOR YOUR ARMY AND YOU WILL REALLY BE ABLE TO LAY DOWN THE HURT.
PICK UP A COUPLE BOXES OF XXXX. THIS UNIT IS A MUST-HAVE FOR YOUR ARMY.

While I admit, that this sort of advice is often sound and usually would impove chances of winning, I get the sinking feeling that this sort of army building is not true tactics. Because in short, your army has a better chance of winning before it ever reaches the table. Like Rock-Paper-Scissors.

But more to the point, the game is less about learning tactics and more about buying your way to a win. If I can only afford Ork Infantry and my opponent has the $$$ to get several fully-loaded Battlewagons and boxes of Meganobs instead, I am destined just to fail - even if we are even on points!

I know that 40K is an expensive game, but it starts to get to me if I think it is about buying yourself to a win.

But I could be way off on this one. What's your opinion? Does the ability to buy certain (oft expensive) models command the winners and the losers? Or can there truly be a fair game under the rules of engagement - equal points vs equal points using strategy and tactics to win the day no matter the opponent?

If you spend wisely, and make the most of conversions, you can field a competitive army on the cheap.

If you buy models that look cool because they look cool, and with no concern for what role they will serve in the game, then you will lose games and want to buy different models to compensate.

My opinion is that, unfortunately, the game developers do a piss poor job of balancing unit's performance with their point-cost. Every codex has units that are just better than other units in the codex, and some codexes have units that are just better and/or cheaper than the same exact unit in another codex.

But, that doesn't prevent you from buying only the good units, and getting a competitive force with minimal expense.

Redbeard wrote:If you spend wisely, and make the most of conversions, you can field a competitive army on the cheap.

I agree with this. But... is it an uphill battle?

Forum sites have army list posting sections and tactics sections. All too often threads in the tactics section tend to look more like army list suggestions.

I spent a few hours after losing my first few games with my Razorwolves list looking for information on how to play it better - beyond "spam razorbacks with big guns and win" there wasn't much. Even for a simple army like that.

Solorg wrote:

Redbeard wrote:If you spend wisely, and make the most of conversions, you can field a competitive army on the cheap.

I agree with this. But... is it an uphill battle?

Of course it is, otherwise we wouldn't buy as many models. If there was a specific army build that worked against everything, lots of people would just build that army and enjoy eternal victory. So instead we have a range of models for a range of situations, and the biggest chequebook will often win because of that.

There is also the price gouging of GW.

They know that there are certain units that are highly prized and so will be bought even if they are expensive. Case in point Space Marine Terminators. A box of 5 costs $50 USD. Why do they cost so much? Its not because they are so expensive to make, its because they are awesome on the field and many people will have them in their armies, therefore people will buy them even if they are expensive.

Granted, its a good business move on their part, but it sucks for us.

On the one hand, I can see how a tank could mash over infantry every tme. On the other hand, it seems as if infantry swarming a tank should be able to take it out (a grenade through the gunslot). Death Or Glory type rules do exist, but they only happen if the owner of the tank decides to Tankshock.

This is probably why I loose so much. I buy models because I like how the look. It seems like visually unappealing army lists win more than the others.

40k isn't even a very good abstraction of any kind of tactical thinking. There are '40k tactics' that use and abuse certain units strengths (mulitple wound, diverse units), or outflanking, or any number of 40k specific things. If you want to play a tactical wargame, you have to play historic/modern wargaming.

I played a WWII 6mm game last night, Germans against Americans. No point value, just whatever we felt was realistic. A game like that takes tactical thinking to outsmart an opponent, considering the 'turns' were done using a deck of cards (one player is black, the other red) with actions written on them (move all, move one, veteran fire, oppurtunity, command, artilley, fire all). 40K is too strict and regimented a game that tactical thinking to truly outsmart your opponent rarely comes into play. Using a card system accurately depicts what Clausewitz called 'friction of war', being the random luck that can alter a battle dramatically. That doesn't happen in 40k. You know your opponent will move, shoot, assault, then you do the same. You know his genestealers are going to assault something, and his hive guard are going to shoot tanks.

40K is a fun game, but at the end of the day, there are very little true tactics involved, short of knowing how to deploy properly, and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your army, and your opponents army.

In short, yes, you have to buy the right units if you want to be competitive, units that are either deathstars, or synergize well within your list and your style of play.

Blacksails wrote:40k isn't even a very good abstraction of any kind of tactical thinking. There are '40k tactics' that use and abuse certain units strengths (mulitple wound, diverse units), or outflanking, or any number of 40k specific things. If you want to play a tactical wargame, you have to play historic/modern wargaming.

I played a WWII 6mm game last night, Germans against Americans. No point value, just whatever we felt was realistic. A game like that takes tactical thinking to outsmart an opponent, considering the 'turns' were done using a deck of cards (one player is black, the other red) with actions written on them (move all, move one, veteran fire, oppurtunity, command, artilley, fire all). 40K is too strict and regimented a game that tactical thinking to truly outsmart your opponent rarely comes into play. Using a card system accurately depicts what Clausewitz called 'friction of war', being the random luck that can alter a battle dramatically. That doesn't happen in 40k. You know your opponent will move, shoot, assault, then you do the same. You know his genestealers are going to assault something, and his hive guard are going to shoot tanks.

40K is a fun game, but at the end of the day, there are very little true tactics involved, short of knowing how to deploy properly, and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your army, and your opponents army.

In short, yes, you have to buy the right units if you want to be competitive, units that are either deathstars, or synergize well within your list and your style of play.

This.

I love when people talk about applying real world tactics to 40k. Cause you can't. The biggest reason is the fog of war. Generally in a real war, one or both sides don't know where, or in what strength, that the enemy is. This means that armies need to put a large amount of resources into reconnaissance. Plus there is a large amount of guess work as to where the enemy is, where they are moving to and in what strength, and what their motives are. Most real world tactics use surprise and the assumption that the enemy doesn't know where you are and in what strength. In Warhammer, none of those things exist, therefore most, if not all real world tactics are useless in a game where the enemy knows your every move, and every possible move.

Blacksails wrote:40k isn't even a very good abstraction of any kind of tactical thinking.

Indeed. 40K is very much a game of lists, which is why I can't play it for too long without getting bored during a year.